Dietary Fiber Estimate of DialBetesPlus App Users: Secondary Analysis of Data From a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the importance of dietary fiber in regulating glycemic control, the reported intake among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Japan was around 12-16 g, well below the local official recommended intake of 20 g and above. Recent data is lacking, with the most recent available estimates collected between 2014 and 2019. Most mHealth dietary intervention apps for T2D focus on calorie and carbohydrate outcomes, with limited evidence on fiber intake. Fiber data was collected in a recent 12-month trial of DialBetesPlus, a multimodal diabetes mHealth self-management system that supports dietary behavior change by allowing users to record their meals and provides timely and detailed information on users' nutrient intake. Objective: This study aimed to assess the pattern of dietary fiber intake among DialBetesPlus intervention users to provide recent data. As a secondary objective, the study explored factors that may influence dietary fiber intake among participants. Methods: Meal records were extracted using the DialBetesPlus app developer dashboard. Dietary fiber intake was measured for all intervention participants. The analysis included only data from participants with complete (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) meal records for at least 7 days. We calculated the average dietary fiber intake and fiber density per day by first averaging across all participants for each day, then averaging these daily values over 1 year. We averaged fiber intake per meal type across all days with available data for each participant, without excluding incomplete meal record days. Results: Out of 66 participants from the intervention group who were assigned to the DialBetesPlus intervention, 47 (71.2%) had at least 7 days of complete meal records and were included in the analysis. A 1-year trend analysis revealed a slight upward trend of daily fiber intake with the rolling average consistently below 18 g. The average fiber intake was 17.1 g/day, with a corresponding mean fiber density of 10.5 g/1000 kcal. The overall mean fiber intake was 17.1 g/day. Separate analysis by meal types revealed that the highest fiber intake was during dinner (6.7 g), followed by lunch (4.8 g), breakfast (4.4 g), and snacks (1.5 g), while fiber density was lowest for snacks (7.8 g/1000 kcal), followed by dinner (10.2 g/1000 kcal), lunch (10.5 g/1000 kcal), and breakfast (10.8 g/1000 kcal). No significant correlations were observed between average fiber intake and participant characteristics such as age, sex, BMI, hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and frequency of meal logging. Conclusions: Despite using a general diabetes self-management mHealth app (DiabetesPlus) that included dietary self-monitoring and basic nutritional feedback, users consumed less than the recommended 20 g/day of dietary fiber on average over a 1-year period. This study highlights the need to explore alternative mHealth strategies to further enhance dietary fiber intake among patients with T2D.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".